University of Pretoria etd – De Kiewit, C (2007) 64 4. THEOLOGICAL THEORIES AND PREACHING MODELS 4.1 An Overview of Recent Developments in Homiletical Theory Preaching has not remained static over the centuries. Preaching theory has continually developed with new insights and emphases being added by many contributors. This is also true of our own age where there is a wide spectrum of opinion. “Contemporary Homiletics shows a diversity of insights and operates from various presuppositions” (Immink 2004:89). Even within a particular and defined denomination, like the Baptist Union of Southern Africa, there is no consistent homiletical model. Preaching in its intention and methodology varies among these churches. There are those who champion expository preaching and others who prefer narrative and topical styles of preaching. The last decades of the twentieth century, North American Homiletics was dominated by what is being called “New Homiletics” and during the first years of the new millennium, the emphasis has been moving further away from the modernist logos to postmodern poetics, a further turn to the listener (Immink 1994:89). Vos (2005:292) discussing “Art as a window on the experiential world” says that, The experiential world floats on the waters of poetry… We can be carried along by the currents, or almost drowned by its maelstroms. Sometimes we can scarcely keep our heads above the water and at other times we are splashing about happily in the streams of life’s experiences… Poetry allows people to dream, no matter how dire their circumstances. “Homiletics is exiting the houses of tradition, scripture, reason and experience” (McClure 2001). It is not that the fundamental constituents of preaching are no longer important, but, says Immink (2004:89), University of Pretoria etd – De Kiewit, C (2007) 65 …their self evident meanings have evaporated. Positions are continuously under deconstruction, identities are fragmented and erased. Surely the basic questions remain. How should we read the Bible as a text? How does anamnesis work? How should we reason in the communication of faith? What is the role of human experience in religious discourse? These questions are handled from quite different perspectives, however. Homiletics is fragmented. Even here it must be noted that the question regarding the Glory of God is conspicuous by its absence. Surely the question uppermost in any preaching event is that of: how and in what way is the Glory of God being communicated? In the western European context, Homiletics took an empirical turn following a heyday of kerygmatic theology. Karl Barth, Rudolf Bultmann and C H Dodd had understood preaching primarily as an encounter with God’s redemptive presence, albeit in different ways. The movement now is toward the process of understanding: how do the listeners engage in the process of understanding? The hearer of the sermon is seen as an active participant in the preaching process (Immink 2004:89). There is no doubt that the preacher seeking to make a difference must take note of the present audience. “The person living in the 21st Century must be taken seriously for meaningful ministry to take place. The preacher must understand the congregation in its own context to avoid proclamation taking place in a vacuum” (Janse van Rensburg 2002:39). Nell (Vos (ed.) 1994:28) agrees: “A sermon must be heard in order to have any effect… Preaching as a communication act is intended to act upon an audience, to modify an audience’s convictions or dispositions… ” The preacher in every context, including the postmodern context needs to know and understand his audience. University of Pretoria etd – De Kiewit, C (2007) 66 The inclusion of the listener or hearer alongside the biblical text is supported by Ernst Lange (1976:58). Gert Otto (1976) emphasizes the rhetorical dimension of preaching: preaching is an address, a speech. The Dutch homiletician, G D J Dingemans (1991), argues for a hermeneutical approach from the perspective of the hearer. Another recent tendency is linked with the late-modern interest in existentialism and subjectivism and moves in the direction of a more constructionist approach. Wilfried Engemann (1993) developed a “semiotic homiletic” in which he tries to do justice to the socio- cultural context of signification. There is also an interest in a more aesthetic approach. Martin Nicol has described how preaching can become a work of art (see 2000:19-24). Vos (2005:306) agrees, saying that the homiletician “is to craft a sermon with care and make it a work of art”. Umberto Eco’s idea of offenes Kunstwerk is introduced into homiletical theories in order to emphasize that texts can be understood in many different ways, that hearers provide their own interpretation, and that we definitively need imagination and metaphorical language in order to represent the divine mystery (Immink 2004:90). 4.1.1 Developments Around the Kerygmatic Theory H. Grady Davis (1958:109) in his book, Design for Preaching, argues that preaching in the New Testament takes the characteristic form of “official announcement, proclamation of God’s action and offer, by the mouth of a chosen messenger.” Proclamation is presented as a promise. It consists of promises made by God, promises of forgiveness and help, of liberation and joy, of hope and of glory (Immink 2004:93). The word euaggelizein (Louw & Nida 1989:412) means “to communicate good news concerning something (in the New Testament a particular reference to the gospel message about Jesus”. It expresses the good news of God’s redemptive action in Jesus Christ. But Davis adds that the ministry of the word is not derived from this concept alone. In the New Testament, teaching and exhortation are the legitimate forms of speech. “Kerygma points to God’s decisive acts in Christ and calls for faith and repentance. Teaching and exhortation focus on the University of Pretoria etd – De Kiewit, C (2007) 67 need in the community of faith to grow in knowledge, faith and obedience” (Immink 2004:93). The herald model is the preferred way of preaching by those who hold to a word-theology. In his early days Barth held that the church had forgotten to read the Word as God’s Word. He was concerned that preaching had turned into a kind of religious discourse, a reflection of human needs and religious desires. This same concern underlies the motivation for this thesis. Barth insisted beginning with his Romans placing strong emphasis on the otherness of God. He saw that, “the Gospel proclaims a God utterly distinct from men. Salvation comes to them from him [God], and because they are, as men, incapable of knowing him, they have no right to claim anything from him” (Barth 1968:28). Therefore, that in preaching we are confronted with a critical and salvific word of God, a word that radically changes us (Immink 2004:93). Eduard Thurneysen argued that preaching as a communicative act is never a communication of experiences, be they pious or not. Instead preaching is about God’s salvific acts in history (Thurneysen 1971:105-118). The emphasis is on God’s saving activity in the world and not on human religious experience. The herald model reinforces that personal experiences, personal opinions, and colourful anecdotes are not truly important in the act of preaching (Long 1989:27). Instead, the divine-human encounter in Jesus Christ is to be re-presented. Preaching has to serve the word of God, i.e. Jesus Christ as the act of God. For that reason, preaching is the exposition of scripture. Consequently, says Immink (2004:93), Our subjective experience or subjective interpretation is de- emphasized in the act of preaching. Instead, preaching is sacramental. It is a human speech act through which God’s salvific action is re-presented (Barth 1971:165-178), not in the sense that we can domesticate God, but rather that God can create the Christ event to be performed in our midst. Preaching is a kerygmatic event, not an expression of human consciousness. University of Pretoria etd – De Kiewit, C (2007) 68 Bloesch (2001:55) commenting in Christianity Today in an article advocating kerygmatic preaching entitled “Whatever happened to God” (www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/002/9.54.html) questions the sad state of the sermon, Equally deplorable is the state of the sermon, which in historic Protestantism was considered the primary means of grace. Our preaching may appeal to the Bible, but that appeal is often more cultural than biblical. We interpret the Bible through the lens of our own experience or our particular religious tradition. We do not allow for the fact that the Spirit speaking to us through the Bible may call our traditions and our theologies into question. The surest evidence that Protestantism has abandoned its glorious heritage—of being not only a reformed church but a constantly reforming church—is the demise of kerygmatic preaching, preaching that consists in retelling the story of God's gift of salvation in Jesus Christ. Ministers may preach from the Bible, but this does not guarantee that they are preaching the Word of God. Their sermons are didactic more than kerygmatic, more centred on moral concerns than on the gospel. Lischer (1992:53) advocates the kerygmatic approach in a more moderate form, he says that “because it is God who speaks and the Holy Spirit who attends the Word, those who preach, teach and give testimony do so with the assurance that the Word’s effective power is not diminished”. Long defines preaching as “bearing witness” and Charles Bartow (1997:3) in his book God’s Human Speech, emphasizes the performance dimension of the kerygmatic model. And if the divine self-disclosure in Jesus Christ is the primary locus of performative action for practical theology…, it is imperative that we attend to that self-disclosure with all the varied means appropriate to it… The Word of God is face to face, oral-aural situated, and suasory discourse.